THE CHOICE-OF-LAW REVOLUTION FIFTY YEARS AFTER CURRIE: an END and a BEGINNING Symeon C

SYMEONIDES.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 11/3/2015 1:55 PM THE CHOICE-OF-LAW REVOLUTION FIFTY YEARS AFTER CURRIE: AN END AND A BEGINNING Symeon C. Symeonides* This Article is part of a symposium commemorating the fiftieth anniversary from the passing of Professor Brainerd Currie (1913– 1965), the protagonist of the American choice-of-law revolution that began in the 1960s. The Article begins with a discussion of what was wrong and what is right with the key component of Currie’s “governmental interest analysis”—his concept of “governmental” or state interests. It con- tends that, when properly conceived, state interests can provide a ra- tional basis for usefully classifying conflicts into three categories and sensibly resolving conflicts falling within two of those categories (“false” and “true” conflicts). The Article then discusses the revolution’s past, present, and future. It chronicles the revolution in tort and contract conflicts by trac- ing the gradual abandonment of the lex loci delicti and lex loci contractus rules in the majority of states of the United States. It then summarizes the methodological changes produced by the revolution and the substantive results reached by the courts that joined it. The Article concludes by building the case for an exit strategy that will turn the revolution’s numerical victory into a substantive success by using the vehicle provided by the process of drafting the Third Con- flicts Restatement. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 1849 II. BRAINERD CURRIE AND STATE INTERESTS .................................. 1850 A. Introduction ................................................................................ 1850 B. Currie’s Conception of Governmental Interests ...................... 1851 C. Do States Have an Interest in Multistate Disputes Between Private Parties? ........................................................................... 1853 D. Are State Interests Ascertainable? ............................................. 1857 E. Not Only in “Public Laws” and Not “Only in America” ....... 1860 F. Reconceptualizing State Interests .............................................. 1861 * Alex L. Parks Distinguished Chair in Law and Dean Emeritus, Willamette University Col- lege of Law; LL.B. (Priv. L.), LL.B. (Public L.), LL.M., S.J.D., LL.D.h.c., Ph.D.h.c. 1847 SYMEONIDES.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 11/3/2015 1:55 PM 1848 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LAW REVIEW [Vol. 2015 G. Can an Interest-Based Approach Rationally Resolve Conflicts? .................................................................................... 1862 1. False Conflicts ..................................................................... 1862 2. True Conflicts ...................................................................... 1863 3. No-Interest Cases ................................................................ 1866 H. Conclusions ................................................................................ 1867 III. THE CHOICE-OF-LAW REVOLUTION IN TORTS AND CONTRACTS ........................................................................................ 1867 A. The Retreat of the Lex Loci Delicti Rule ................................. 1868 B. The Retreat of the Lex Loci Contractus Rule .......................... 1875 C. The Remaining Traditional States ............................................ 1882 IV. THE REVOLUTION TODAY ............................................................... 1885 A. Methodological Pluralism ......................................................... 1885 1. Methodological Camps ....................................................... 1886 2. Caveats ................................................................................. 1886 3. The Relative Inconsequence of Methodology ................... 1889 4. The Decline of Currie’s Following .................................... 1890 5. The Popularity of the Restatement (Second) .................... 1892 B. Methodological Changes Brought by the Revolution in Tort Conflicts ...................................................................................... 1893 C. Substantive Outcomes in Tort Conflicts ................................... 1895 1. Common-Domicile Cases ................................................... 1895 2. Split-Domicile Intrastate Torts ........................................... 1897 3. Split-Domicile Cross-Border Torts ................................... 1899 4. Other Tort Conflicts and Products Liability .................... 1900 5. Summary .............................................................................. 1901 V. TIME FOR AN EXIT ............................................................................. 1904 A. The Status Quo ........................................................................... 1904 B. The Next Step: An Exit Strategy ................................................ 1906 C. Exiting Through a New Restatement ........................................ 1907 D. Recommendations ...................................................................... 1909 1. Summary .............................................................................. 1909 2. Coverage .............................................................................. 1909 3. Filling the Gaps and Updating the Content of the Restatement (Second) ......................................................... 1910 4. Breaking the Situs Taboo ................................................... 1915 5. Finding the Golden Medium Between Certainty and Flexibility ............................................................................. 1916 VI. CONCLUSIONS: FROM VICTORY TO SUCCESS ................................. 1921 SYMEONIDES.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 11/3/2015 1:55 PM No. 5] CHOICE-OF-LAW REVOLUTION AFTER CURRIE 1849 I. INTRODUCTION Professor Brainerd Currie, the chief protagonist of what came to be known as the American choice-of-law revolution, passed away fifty years ago, on September 7, 1965.1 He lived for only fifty-two short years, but, as one of his contemporaries wrote at the time, “[i]n his curtailed life- time, Brainerd Currie’s achievements were of a brilliance and variety suf- ficient to have conferred eminence on the lives of several men.”2 He “transformed through his scholarship the field of conflict of laws.”3 The “scholastic revolution” that he began, along with others, instigated and guided a judicial revolution that eventually overthrew the then estab- lished system for choosing the law applicable to multistate cases.4 The Association of American Law Schools (“AALS”) Section on Conflict of Laws marked this occasion by dedicating its 2015 meeting to Currie and the revolution he led. Professor Herma Hill Kay, who was Currie’s student and coauthor, but who is also a living conflicts legend in her own right, spoke about Currie as a teacher and scholar. She was fol- lowed by four speakers from the current intellectual leadership of conflicts scholarship: Professors Lea Brilmayer (Yale), Peter Hay (Emory), Joseph Singer (Harvard), and Louise Weinberg (Texas). They were asked to reflect on the accomplishments and shortcomings of the revolution and, more importantly, to address the question of “what’s next” in the evolution of American conflicts law. In the meantime, the American Law Institute (“ALI”) may have answered this question, at least in part, when it decided to authorize work on a new Conflicts Restatement to re- place the Restatement (Second),5 whose lifespan largely overlaps with the revolutionary period. Some of the speakers addressed that develop- ment as well. This issue of the University of Illinois Law Review repro- duces the written version of the speakers’ remarks. As the convener and moderator of the AALS meeting, I chose not to speak so as not to encroach on the limited time available to the speakers. This Article is the written and more expansive version of what I would have said had I spoken. It is divided into four parts. Part II discusses one core component of Currie’s “governmental interest analysis”—his concept of “governmental” or state interests. The next three Parts discuss the revolution’s past, present, and future. Part III chronicles the revolution, Part IV summarizes the methodological changes produced by the revolution and the results reached by the courts that joined 1. Elvin R. Latty, Brainerd Currie—Five Tributes, 1966 DUKE L.J. 1, 15. 2. Lawrence G. Wallace, in ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN LAW SCHOOLS, PROCEEDINGS, PART I—REPORT OF COMMITTEES 123 (1965), quoted in Latty, supra note 1, at 4. 3. Gary J. Simson, Choice of Law After the Currie Revolution: What Role for the Needs of the Interstate and International Systems?, 63 MERCER L. REV. 715, 716 (2012) (“It is no exaggeration to say that Currie was the most influential conflicts scholar of the last century.”). 4. For a comprehensive discussion and documentation of both the scholastic and the judicial choice-of-law revolution, see SYMEON C. SYMEONIDES, THE AMERICAN CHOICE-OF-LAW REVOLUTION: PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE (2006) [hereinafter SYMEONIDES, REVOLUTION]. 5. See RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONFLICT OF LAWS (1971). SYMEONIDES.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 11/3/2015 1:55 PM 1850 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LAW REVIEW [Vol. 2015 it, and Part V pleads for an exit strategy that will turn the revolution’s numerical victory into a substantive success by using the vehicle provided by the process of drafting the new Conflicts Restatement. II. BRAINERD CURRIE

Load more